How to fix your color science editionPreviously: >>4521485
>>4522451I’ve never had green issues with sony but then again i am not a woman alhamdulillah
>>4522467> Desert nomad does not know what green is.
>>4522451why would any sane man voluntarily spent irl money to purchase a sony?
Reality check time. Facts don’t care about your forced memes. https://www.photoxels.com/sony-strikes-another-5th-news-agency-win-reuters-decides-on-sony-a7s-iii-and-pxw-z280-as-their-journalists-main-shooting-kit/https://www.photoxels.com/britains-pa-media-group-selects-sony-alpha-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-and-cinema-line-camera-fx3-as-preferred-equipment/https://www.photoxels.com/fourth-win-sony-strikes-deal-with-the-canadian-press-to-be-its-exclusive-image-products-provider/https://www.photoxels.com/gannett-usa-today-selects-sony-as-exclusive-imaging-product-provider-for-their-photographers-and-journalists/https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visual-journalists-globally-with-sony-imaging-products/https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/sony-again-claims-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/sony-dominates-canon-and-nikon-in-the-mirrorless-camera-market-for-the-third-year-running/https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/mirrorless-cameras/the-sony-a7-v-and-a7r-vi-are-so-popular-sony-now-has-an-even-bigger-chunk-of-the-full-frame-camera-market-but-thats-not-even-whats-breaking-recordshttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji//p/ users love repeating a lie constantly until someone believed it. Ie: xtrans prevents moire, live view blinkies matter, m43 is good. It helps to see some facts now and then!
>>4522504SIR DELETE THISTHIS IS NOT FAIR SIRI HAVE ANTI SONY INSTAGRAM VIDEOS YOU JUST CONTRADICT! DELETE!
>>4522504>Reality check time. Facts don’t care about your forced memes.If only you took your own advice
>>4522506>journalism and facts are forced memesYou literally cant handle the truth
>>4522504The sony hating nikon shilling furfag isn’t going to like this
>>4522511crossposting
>>4522504I wonder why ALL (all) the other brands don't need blatantly sponsored articles to deboonk the MASSIVE amounts people complaining about poor colour science. Funny, isn't it..? :^)
>>4522516>facts? journalism? SPONOSORED! SHILLING! IT CAN NOT BE TRUE!>some israeli furfag samefagging /p/ to death? some manlet incel who got banned from every camera forum and came here to spam? MASSIVE TRUTH!I literally have not seen a non-sony camera in professional use for three years, with two exceptions:My brothers wedding. He didnt want to pay a ton for a photographer and ended up with some woman with two nikon z30 + kit zooms. The photos sucked technically and artistically so she edited them all polaroid style. No prints over 5x7 were available. None. Our mother had to shout her down to get normal looking 8x10s for the adults. The video (static tripod) looked fine. She charged $300. Sports games. These are 50/50 canon sony, no other brands are seen.
Any time someone on /p/ insists sony is horrible and the cameras are poorly made, with photos of broken shutters, picked-at weather seals and reddit links, and then tells you to buy nikon or micro four thirds… remember there’s a good chance they’re in this photo
I need pricing help if anyone is good at this.>I want to get a 100-400mm RF lens.>CPW just posted a street price of $649 for new>The lowest new price otherwise is $749>The latest refurbished sale was $500Is buying new at $649 a good idea?
>>4522524>is buying new a good ideaNoBuy on ebay and test decentering asap, do an item not as described if there are issues (smeared defocused light point, one corner or edge much softer than others)
Do you think this 60€ Muji backpack is any good? For day trips, throwing in my camera and maybe a lens or two and a bottle of water
>>4522451So which camera brands have actually good color science then?
>>4522537I change my cameras and brands more than my underwear. The best color imo had the og Leica Q. The raw files were near perfect and just needed a bit of whitebalance fixing
>>4522537Any if you're able to click a button or two in postSony is #1 if you take blind comparison voting to be true
>>4522537Sony. Its in the facts: >>4522504In objective scientific tests the two most color accurate cameras are the fuji xt3 and sony a7RIII
>>4522537I never had color complaints with my OG Pentax K-1
>>4522537Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon or Leica. Pick any, you can't go wrong. There's a reason they don't constantly change their color science in every new model they release. They already perfected it decades ago.
>>4522553we can see the truth nuke at the top of the thread bro take a break your dogwife probably misses you
>>4522520I see them around in pro use. The only two brands I ever see used professionally are Canon and Sony, with Canon usually being for something like architectural work and Sony for things like advertising and modelling work. As for personal cameras, it seems like a lot of people use Sony outside of work (which I do as well despite using Canon at work) and I just find the cameras more fun to use and the overall look to be better. I do also use a Canon compact sometimes too if I just want a tiny camera in my pocket for the day.I'd be stunned if a Fuji was being used anywhere professionally though, I don't even see those in the wild anymore. It seems like the Ricoh has taken their place as I see those a lot and people post on IG all the time about their film looks.>>4522537Sony and Canon, though Nikon does alright as well. Fuji has "good'" color science if you really want to go fully into some of the weirder film like looks for your photos. It's really all about preference in the end, but if you want to be as accurate as possible, Sony and Canon are pretty much it.
>>4522467Newer Sonys push magenta.
>>4522568>if i pixel peep it on dpreview its true>if someone opens capture one and proves its processing variance ill forget they did>if anyone posts their own photos to prove me wrong ill forget>if pros use the camera i say dpreview proves is bad its all lies>and if no one agrees with me i’ll repeat myself again and again and again!>WHY DONT U WANT BETTER CAMERAS?>-some literally autistic halfway house resident that doesn’t own a camera
>>4522563>I'd be stunned if a Fuji was being used anywhere professionally thoughIt's basically only people that just prefer Fuji for whatever reason, plenty out there. Benjamin Kanarek would be an example in the fashion realm of things.>>4522568Good thing it's a complete non-issue in the real world
>>4522572>Good thing it's a complete non-issue in the real worldprofessional creators disagreehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3l0HDGh7PM&t=1087
>>4522573>a youtuber got color shifts by missing exposure 5 stops with a consumer aps-c camera! END OF THE WORLD!The asperger subhuman is back on his old shtickhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/w9HpsyL0i4rbzGOC60hE5g/You gonna repeat this one 20 times too ya hand flapping sexless freak?
>>4522573If this were a real issue it would be widely documented by more than some fucking failure whose only purpose in life is getting people to watch ads on youtubeJust another “creator” (useless ad man) using the wrong settings, again. Youtubers are bad at photography. Like julia trotti. Total fucking retard. You won’t see annie leibovitz doing this influencer shit.
>>4522572> t. That guy who took a Nikon Z5, a color target, and a tripod on a casual date.
>>4522574oh my fucking god>>4522573you had this argument already and got destroyedyou didnt post a photo or proof you own a camera then eitherfuck off
What are the chances one of the primary brands for pros is actually bad and the proof was always in some amateur generated camera reviews and the wisdom of some mentally disabled man?Could it be true? Of course. No way would amateurs use their cameras and software incorrectly. The wildly popular cameras are the problem. And a disabled weirdo has the facts and logic (mostly logic) to back it up. He’s so smart he doesnt even need to use a camera to know how they work. Who are we to trust countless professionals over… this guy:>LIIIII VEEEWWWW BLINKIES *FLAPFLAPFLAP* FUJI NO MOIRE SONY MOIRE PROOF DPREVIEWWWW *FLAPFLAPFLAP* MOOOOOMMM I WANT TENDIES
>>4522569Wow. Thank you for putting eggs in there! Film can easily be 1000MP or higher if you just use a big enough piece of it, btw. I've gotten over 600MP off an 8x10 sheet before using a shitty flatbed scanner! Film is pretty cool like that. :D
>>4522579Explain how mega*pixels* apply to film before being digitized without using the word "equivalence".I'll wait.
>>4522579I can make any image 1000mp with the resize tool in microsoft photoshop
>>4522580They don't at all, obviously, but you can approximate it and compare if you really wanted to. You know like with those boring ass nerdy lp/mm test chart thingies. Take a pic of it and then look at the film to see the smallest lines resolved. Truly the greatest thing you could do with your cameras and film!It could be useful to know for some boring ass applications. Film grain can be a really nice addition to photographs just like ultra fine tonality and no grain from big film can also be amazing. It just depends what kinda look you want in your prints, ya'know?
>>4522582Wow that's pretty crazy. Does Adobe paint also work?
>>4522579Either your flatbed is magical and better than alex burke’s drum scanner, or everyone laughs at you because you are clearly delusional and post blurry photos while making absurd resolution claims. https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2024/11/12/maximum-print-size-for-film-scans
>>4522580megadotsperinch
Attention all film resolution experts:Your film may be losing resolution over time!According to the principles of rotational velocidensity established by Stein and Levi in 1973, all information on a rotating medium is inherently unstable and may spontaneously change state depending on the present state of the local virtual gravity eddy currents as guaranteed by Baum’s 2nd law of quantum metaphysics, that is, that all probable interactions between two sets of probabalities have their own associated nth order abstraction probable causal tuning effects and ultimately possibly affect the world line’s harmonics. Your film is, as it sits, dereifying at a rate of 0.02e-17 bits per picosecond. You can only reverse this by storing your film so that it rotated counter to the earths spin. This sufficiently complicates its interactions with uncreated potential reality to make deireification events over 700 times less likely. I recommend orienting (build a wooden stand if necessary) a record player against the earths spin as it is relative to your location (this is easy to calculate, so i trust you can do it) and placing your film in a shoebox on top of an old recordIf you do not heed my advice your film will get blurrier and less certain with age
>>4522585Idk angry bro, you tell me. This is a crop about half the size of a 35mm frame. I guess if we're being extra gay and nerdy I meant resolving power or whatever you want to call it. I don't have any calipers here, so I can't measure those small lines of text on the bottle, unfortunately.I think more people laugh at how seriously some people take the basket weaving forums kek. Someone actually spent time and effort making that graphic about their greatest enemies on /p/. It's really quite funny.
>>4522591Blurry
>>4522590If I put my SD cards in the shoebox could that possibly help me destretch my colors or do I need to 3d print something for that???
>>4522590Film megapixel expert here. This is true. >/p/ - audiophiles
>>4522592Its 1/120th of the negative with zero added sharpening.
>>4522595So 1554x1300=2mp is 1/120th? Its a 240mp image?That’s not 600mpAnd its blurry = you overscanned it. Theres no additional detail. It could be 2/3 as big and still be as detailed, there’s no point. Its more like 150mp really.
>>4522597I haven't examined the negative closely to check if the smallest text is resolved, but I would bet that it is. Still sticking with 600MP as a conservative estimate.
>>452259735mm was objectively measured at 275MP anyways, so I'm being extremely conservative with that number.
Big blurry photo != high resolving powerDetermining this is what test charts are for (imatest). One and done, objective lp/mm measurement and mtf curves. Zooming in on 20 snapshits of blurry pets and blurry junk and arguing about them is a pointless activity. You will always find that you’re camera has fewer megapickles than you thought it did and you were zooming in on and scrutinizing shit for no reason.
>>4522568>>4522573Nigger i have the a6700Tell me what settings to use and what to take pic of and i ll post it here to checkIf it true or not
>>4522601But that is not nearly as fun. Also 35mm film was tested at 275MP, so you can just easily multiply that by 60 to get your answer. I underestimated, greatly.
>>4522599>objectively measured>"objectively">""measured""Some guy online said a thing and you believed it because it suits your preconcieved stance on the subject.
>>4522608Wrong. I thought film was way lower MP than that before real world testing proved otherwise. It's clear that the preconceived notions are held by the more... digital inclined in this thread, shall we say.
>>4522569>the left can't meme
>>4522609>real world testingCare to provide the results of this test, the white paper you wrote up to commit to the academic community, and the list of peers who reviewed your work?Your annecdotes mean fuck and all, and that's coming from someone who shoots film.
>>4522613Yeah just gimme a sec I gotta go find it.
Anyone who has actually handled 35mm film knows it is not 275 mpx... Unless you mean the whole roll...
>>4522617Me when I handle real film so I can count the individual megapickles
>>4522578> What are the chances one of the primary brands for shooting celebrities and propaganda is actually bad and unsuitable for amateur photographyYou tell me anon, I just want to have fun with my photos.
Have beat to shit XT3 with two lenses.Do I move to the ZF? I want the bigger selection of lenses from Voigtlander because I only like manual lenses. I also want to try Meyer Optik lenses in their "original" full frame focal lengths without the crop.
>>4522629>it’s da joooooooooos!
>>4522643Nikon's subject detection while MF with any lens + chipped adapters to make any adapted lens chipped has been a game changer. No longer need to use peaking or zoom in for MF at all. Even provides the arrow indicators and allows for focus trapping.That said, I've grown to dislike the Zf body, and greatly prefer the X-T line when it comes to actually operating the camera. Zf is better built, with great weather sealing (from my experiences), but you really need a grip / half case for most lenses. Z5II offers all the same stuff, and more, in a more functional body.
>>4522647If the creaky plastic zf with its thin grip pleather and easily gouged base is better built than an fuji xt, add one to reasons fuji is a scam
I see 50% off some IRIX lenses (non-cine DSLR) and now I have a dilemma, because those things look big and heavy.
>>4522648Mines held up in pretty substantial amounts of rain, and no damage or anything like that after 3 years of heavy useHow many cameras have you broken or had to send in repair from your typical usage? What models?
>>4522669>but it didnt break :( leave nikon aloneI’m not paying $1500 for a plasticky feeling camera that’s prone to squeaks, creaks, scratched plastic, and grips flaking/peeling. Sorry!Better luck next time, 3rd rate budget oriented consumer camera brand!
How much per unit did nikon save by using softer, thinner gloss plastic for the bottom half? $0.005?This thing costs how much again?Since when was quality PLASTIC a special feature for professional samurai models that us mere ungrateful rice farming peasants don’t deserve?
aside from being made of plastic, slow autofocus, heavy, no stabilization, solar flare and some optical distortions, what's the catch? seems a pretty good deal
is there some rabid snoyfag in cologne? everywhere I go I see SONY tagged on random poles
>>4522672the fact that the zf is offered in 20 different color combinations should've told you it was a cheap toy. what did you expect anon? buy leica if you want cnc machined metal made by aryan ubermensch in northern evropa.
>>4522574>>4522575>>4522577>>4522578A normal human would admit that the a6700 has exceptionally bad color which anyone with eyes can see (Sony did improve more recent cameras), but since you are a damage control shill you have to follow your posting guidelines.
>resident fujiworm schizo still posting his debunked "proofs" ad nauseamSad, many such cases.
>>4522602take a pic with a6700 and another camera of the same thing, same settings, and show them side-by-side.I know from experience wrangling Sony files that the shadows on the background of this example are artificially reddened. An accurate image looks more like right example.https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7692340468/656838
>>4522673apparently the catch is that the lens snaps off the camera body and falls on the floor…
>>4522683Instead of fabricating an image of what it supposedly apparently should look like why don't you show as an image of what it actually does look like?
>>4522680https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/zj1OAlFyYQ3kixzYD82lgA/Holy fucking repost. Do you own a camera?>>4522683>pixel peep some bad photography on dpreview>turn the shadows lime green>i fixd it snoy shuld hire meDo you own a camera?
>>4522683>a red furred dog is red. quick, turn everything green!actual retardis this chaoscloud or whoever from the dpreview forums, the notorious fat retard that lives with his mom?
Apparently, its becoming common for people to not know how cameras and light work. They’re used to their phones auto enhancements neutralizing everything and shitting out zero contrast artificially sharpened hdr photos with five different white balances. When they see real photos where each light source including light reflecting off things has its own color, they think their camera is broken and proceed to buy another. And then again!>WHY CANT I GET GOOD COLOR SCIENCE?Until they settle on an 8 bit CCD DSLR or 8 bit CCD film scanner that doesn't have the color resolution to detect those color differences at alMaybe canon was right to be as aggressively dismissive of non-professional users as possibleMaybe… the Jews were right about goyim.
>>4522688Dont forget the other gearfag paths>buying the newest sony to get the most up to date lightroom presets and throwing gm lenses at everything until it looks good>buying a fuji, underexposing everything, hiding their lack of effort behind vsco filters, and only using their $2000 toy to post 2mp jpgs of cats and benches>going back to their phone and complaining while posting dpreview slop on 4chan
Snoy schizo saw a light magenta cast and went off the rails again.
Man fuuuck this tariff bs. Ordered a cheap camera from japan and just shipping would have added $40, but now it's $80 due to this new bs.
>>4522683Congratulations on turning all of the black objects green
>>4522694it's hard to get the files to look decent that is why I don't bother with Sony anymore.
>>4522695The original was normal. Literally perfectly neutral. You turned it green. Post proof you own a camera.
>>4522683Damn it was true all along.
>>4522698Do you own a camera?
>>4522695Who gave the greenlight for such bizarre color renditions on every single sony camera?
>>4522700Hello, autistic samefag. I’m asking you a basic question. Do you own a camera?
>>4522700The thing with Sony is that they are electronics product makers, not camera makers. Even in their manuals the word "camera" isn't used, it is always "product".They are optimizing for dynamic range charts at the expense of photographic image quality aspects.The color issue may be a result of using faint color filters on their sensors which improves light transmission but makes balancing the primaries and their response curve much more difficult.
>>4522703Oh so they're just products for chart nerds and not designed with real photographers in mind? Kinda sucks so many care more about numbers instead of how the pictures actually look.
>I tried the Sigma 18-50mm today on an R7.>It didn't seem to have as much background blur as I wanted.>I shoot portraits 95% of the time.Should I consider a prime lens instead like the 56mm f/1.4? And then just throwing a cheap ~16mm prime in the backpack for the rare occasion I want a landscape?
>>4522703Just because you use a load of clever sounding words doesn't mean you're right and actually know what you're talking about. The fact that you parrot that bullshit about them calling it a product and not a camera shows how much of a sheep you are. Just as an example the A7R III manual mentions camera 428 times in 715 pages (and that's all languages, only 92 are in English but Italian and Dutch also probably contribute to those mentions).>>4522704People like to dismiss the charts because it shows factually that Sony bodies are often on top. The thing is the actual photos from these cameras are also decent, when asked to show proof of the contrary, of this sickly green colour cast they supposedly have, they can only post a screenshot from a youtube video of some bimbo that messed up the white balance (probably on purpose, but she could just be incompetent) or they fabricate shit like >>4522683 Also they have no rebuttal whenever someone mentions other brands having colour casts. I think some older Canons used to be a bit red or something like that, I don't remember because it was minor shit that doesn't fucking matter unless you're doing scientific work.
>>4522709Youre ultra biased and constantly spam the gear thread. I wasn't asking you, but maybe you can explain why do all the pictures always look so bad? Maybe there is more than just numbers?
>>4522710>>4522704>>4522703DoYouOwnACamera?
>>4522706I used this on canon ef-m mount. Its a very good lens.
>>4522504/thread.
>>4522711Answer my question first please.
>>4522714Do you own a camera?
I've got a 90DI love my 90DSo why the fuck am I looking at 5D Mk IV's?
>>4522711jannies be legit wondering how this absolute chad always nails straight (yous)
>>4522717Nice samefag, kek. Now please answer my question.
>>4522718
>>4522615Where is it?
>>4522720he has proof a flatbed=600mp 8x10 like sony hate schizo has a camerathese gear schizos dont get that like, everyone hates them
>>4522723You patrol every thread on /p/ making sure no one talks bad about your favorite mega-corp, and if they do you spam the thread with a sony brand meltdown. Stop taking the bait every single time.
>>4522716/gear/ Brainrot
>>4522724Do you own a camera?
>>4522719You first retardNo balls if notnta
>>4522704>Oh so they're just products for chart nerds and not designed with real photographers in mind? Kinda sucks so many care more about numbers instead of how the pictures actually look.Exactly. Same thing with sharpness. They deleted Optical Low-Pass Filters (OLPF) which slightly increases sharpness on charts, but as result we get terrible false colour striping (moire) and other false colour effects.https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg
>>4522710>maybe you can explain why do all the pictures always look so bad?They don't, and you never provide proof of this beyond purposely bad examples. The burden is on you, plenty of people have posted examples of fuji worms because it's an actual thing.>>4522729This is not something unique to Sony bodies, and it's not all Sonys
>>4522729Really quite sad to see that. The colors are just awful in that image as well. Nearly vomit inducing. If one of my pictures came out like that I would return the camera.>>4522727>doesn't disagree>continues schizo spam
>>4522686>newfag doesn't know what a meme is
>>4522729You had this argument already. Many times.https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/You lost it last thread. >>4521485 It is a processing and lens issue. Dpreview’s editor (ACR) isn’t as good as capture one and they tend towards reviewing with the sharpest lens their reviewer has. Sharp lenses cause moire even with an OLPF. The what why and how was fully explained last thread. By multiple people. We contributed original samples. You keep stealing off dpreview. Where is your camera? Do you own a camera?>>4522728I own a camera. This fucking autist either doesn’t or he’s an ashamed namefag/identityfag that hasn’t been acting like his other persona.
>>4522732Samefagging shill
>>4522729I was going to buy a sony but this thread convinced me not to. Thanks anon.
>>4522741>schizo copeMany, many such cases.
>>4522739No, anon, he does not own a cameraHe is a paid fucking shillA human being wouldnt lose the same bullshit argument and go back to PROOF SNOY IS BAD A NORMAL HUMAN WOULD ADMIT SNOY IS BAD AND BUY FUJI the next day. They would learn their fucking lesson, that all cameras are basically the same. A normal human being wouldn’t repost the same fucking lost arguments over and over again and source everything from shitty review samples either. It’s a paid shill. Possibly a bot. It can not even post proof it has hands let alone a camera. It will never ever ever shut up. Its purpose is to post “proof” sony is bad and fuji is good until someone believes it. One xs20 sold probably covers the cost of paying/operating this thing tenfold.
>>4522742Samefag. >>4522741Correct. >>4522745Also correct. It’s an obvious shill/bot.
>>4522746no anon. I just saw the extremely aggressive sony shilling in this thread and real proof of how bad the cameras are. Look at the first couple dozen posts. Pure mental illness. Ive seen proof that fujis are pretty garbage here as well. Not sure if they are as terrible as sony but still.
>>4522749You post the exact same shit over and over, get proven wrong, and then post the exact same shit over and over. No one believes it so you reply to yourself. Do you own a camera?
>>4522751huh? I barely ever post here. I was just looking at various places online to see what camera people recommend. Do you have some photos you could share of your favorite camera?
>>4522749>i’ll stop lying on repeat if people stop saying sony isn’t shitSo you’re a shill
>>4522753>i barely ever post here>is in every thread>reused images with unchanged filenames>reused arguments>repetitive behavior>for months straightThe shill lies as it breaths
>>4522504Epic truth nuke>inb4 but i zoomed in on a test chart on dpreview and found a bad review on youtuber sir…
Okay, yeah I guess this was the wrong place to ask about cameras. It's just one guy angrily shilling sony cameras and having a bizarre schizo meltdown. Oh well, I tried. Thanks for confirming how bad sony cameras are guys.
>>4522759>i’m cornered. the guy who proved me wrong is the problem!The problem, shilljeet, is your “sony problems” (lies) are universal to all bayer cameras. Initially you were saying this, and shilling fuji over all other brands, repeating fuji marketing material. You’re treating into snoy hate because you think its more in line with /p/ groupthink and will help you maintain izzat. However, shilljesh, multiple people dogpiled you last thread. You’ve lost this entirely. Stop reposting your lies and post proof you even own a camera, or every gear thread from now on will emphatically recommend sony with detailed proof of sony supremacy. Just because you, and you alone hate sony. Your stupidity, constant reposts, and lack of camera ownership ultimately make sony look even better.
>>4522530YeahGood on you for buying a normal backpack for a normal person and not a 400 dollar monstrosity made of 10000 ballistic nylon with carcinogenic teflon coating. You will be much less afraid to use it and discard it when it gets cruddy enough
>mfw i just shitposted hard enough to fuck an indian fuji shill out of his paycheck
>>4522762Huh, well you've convinced me even more that sony is a terrible camera. Appreciate it anon. You save me a lot of money.
>>4522766hahaha you forgot to have grok correct your ESLisms. no rupees for you tonight, jam boy!
>>4522755>Everyone I don't like is one guy samefagging
>sony shill meltdown has reached new levels of schizo cope Nice.
>>4522769He got cucked, badly. Of course he thinks everyone is just one guy.
